Originally posted by divegeester You're making assumptions.
I do not allow my Christianity to erode my moral code, I look for it to improve it. I don't agree with morality that says it's ok to drown people, kill people or burning them in hell for eternity. Now if god is upset with me thinking like this then he and will one day take it up face to face. I simply refuse to accept that these things are I'm just because they are written in a book.
So on what is your moral code based? What objective standard do you use to differentiate between right and wrong?
Originally posted by divegeester I "think" what you told me in another thread; which was that it was ok for god to kill children but not ok for humans to do so. Therefore for you, the killing of children is not absolutely morally wrong, but for all atheists it is absolutely morally wrong. Your OP is wrong, you are wrong.
You said in another thread "love the Lord your God with all your heart" is an absolute. This absolute applies only to people and not to God. Why then should my absolute apply to God when yours doesn't?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So on what is your moral code based? What objective standard do you use to differentiate between right and wrong?
It's not based on your way of thinking that's for sure. You are tub-a thumbping moral cripple, like sonship and many of the other Christians here. You are proud to abdicate reason, you are happy to abandon moral rationality and substitute it with your blind ignorant ill-informed religiosity.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If their God figure doesn't exist and didn't tell them, it would only be subjectively wrong from your perspective of no moral absolutes. If He does in fact exist, he would have been using them to exercise his judgement, and then his judgement is absolute and no one can argue with his judgement.
So you defend genocide if there is a supernatural dimension that just so happens to appeal to your imagination? That's how your "moral absolutes" work then, is it?
And "no one can argue with" some god figure or other that you insist exists? This is the substance of the "absolutes" that you conjure up and think pertain to me?
And you're adamant that there is no "subjectivity" involved in the processing of these personal opinions of yours?
I 'm getting the hang of it, yes, how you earnestly believe that your superstitions somehow create "absolutes" that you feel entitled to superimpose onto people who are not superstitious?
A series of questions seeking your rejection or confirmation.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You said in another thread "love the Lord your God with all your heart" is an absolute. This absolute applies only to people and not to God. Why then should my absolute apply to God when yours doesn't?
I notice you snidely left off that I said it is an absolute "truth" by the way, not an axample of your moral absolutism.
Originally posted by divegeester It's not based on your way of thinking that's for sure. You are tub-a thumbping moral cripple, like sonship and many of the other Christians here. You are proud to abdicate reason, you are happy to abandon moral rationality and substitute it with your blind ignorant ill-informed religiosity.
So if you believe I am ill informed feel free to enlighten me. I am here to learn. I have asked you multiple questions that you keep on ignoring and all you have in reply are insults. That seems to indicate that you may actually be the one who is ill informed. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Originally posted by divegeester I notice you snidely left off that I said it is an absolute "truth" by the way, not an axample of your moral absolutism.
So in your view a 'universal truth' does not apply to God, but a universal (moral) truth does?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So if you believe I am ill informed feel free to enlighten me. I am here to learn. I have asked you multiple questions that you keep on ignoring and all you have in reply are insults. That seems to indicate that you may actually be the one who is ill informed. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I ignore most of your stuff; you're a boring poster who thinks ok for a God to kill children.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Assuming that atheism is true, what would be the top 10 benefits of being an atheist? Here are a few that I can think of:
1. No moral absolutes, I can make up my own good and evil.
2. No afterlife judgement, I can do whatever the hell I want, if I don't get caught it's cool no need to worry about hell.
3. Freedom from the shackles of religion, si ...[text shortened]... ief I don't have to defend it against scrutiny.
6?
That's all I got, please add to the list.
You're still a newbie here, so I suppose this can be written off as a newbie's exuberance, but even I find this kind of thing a bit heavy-handed. I, too, might have tried such a thread when I first came here (and in fact, I did author other threads just as aggressively offensive as this), but I would hope that I now have the benefit of being here long enough to know the difference. I certainly would not entertain drawing a gigantic target on my back like this, and that is precisely the main effect of writing a thread like this.
Originally posted by Suzianne You're still a newbie here, so I suppose this can be written off as a newbie's exuberance, but even I find this kind of thing a bit heavy-handed. I, too, might have tried such a thread when I first came here (and in fact, I did author other threads just as aggressively offensive as this), but I would hope that I now have the benefit of being here long enough to know the difference.
Originally posted by FMF This comment makes good sense, Suzianne.
I'm not convinced FMJ has ever met a real atheist. He reminds me of those ancient chaps who had heard rumours of a rhinoceros and imagined it as ten feet tall with the tail of a scorpion.
Asked to draw an atheist, he'd probably draw the Gruffalo.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I'm not convinced FMJ has ever met a real atheist. He reminds me of those ancient chaps who had heard rumours of a rhinoceros and imagined it as ten feet tall with the tail of a scorpion.
Asked to draw an atheist, he'd probably draw the Gruffalo.
I am convinced that he has met a real atheist and knows perfectly well how wrong he is, but still posts his nonsense anyway. If he met a rhino, he would keep asking it questions about its scorpion tail several months after meeting it.
He is probably like whodey, who believes that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. I used to think it was a stupid strategy, but then Trump got elected.
The top 10 benefits of atheism
09 Feb '17 08:06
Back to Top